- From: Eran Chinthaka <chinthaka@wso2.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:42:07 +0600
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- CC: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <43E8413F.6070406@wso2.com>
Thanks for the reply. Please see my comments inline. Rogers, Tony wrote: >"UUID" means Universally Unique ID - it's basically a GUID without an MS trademark :-) Yep, I knew it. Thanks anyway. :-) > It would normally be a 128 bit number, usually presented as a hex string of 32 digits in the format 12345678-1234-1234-1234-1234567890ab - is that the kind of number you are seeing? If so, then it suggests that they are using the UUID method to generate numbers that are likely to be unique (for fairly large values of "likely"). This is not a bad idea, but I didn't think it was mandated. > >I would have thought that one might use EITHER uuid: OR urn: as a prefix to the message id - using both seems a little excessive. That is the exact question I'm asking. message id must have a scheme, which can be either uuid OR urn, but may not be both. -- Chinthaka > >Perhaps one of our MS representatives might care to comment? > >________________________________ > >From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Eran Chinthaka >Sent: Tue 07-Feb-06 15:31 >To: [WS-A] >Subject: Clarification on MessageId > > > > > Hi, > > I've started to complete WS-A implementation we have with Axis2. When > I went through our issue tracking system, I saw a little confusing > issue being filled by a user who was trying to interoperate .net with > Axis2. > > He has complained saying .net expects message id of the pattern > "uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>". But the spec says it can be any IRI. But > for me it seems that .net has mandated to prefix the uuid with > "uuid:urn". > > I checked with WS-A CR here : > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/ (BTW, this is the > latest, right ? ). In the first example, the message id was like > http://example.com/6B29FC40-CA47-1067-B31D-00DD010662DA. > > So as far as the interop is concerned what do you think about this ? > Shall we adhere to the practice of putting "uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>" > as the message id, or will it be "any" IRI ? > > ( Please forgive me, if the one who has filled the bug has lied, as I > couldn't try this on my own :( ) > > Thanks, > Eran Chinthaka --------------030401030007070504090803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi Tony,<br> <br> Thanks for the reply. Please see my comments inline.<br> <br> Rogers, Tony wrote:<br> <br> <span style="white-space: pre;">>"UUID" means Universally Unique ID - it's basically a GUID without an MS trademark :-) </span><br> <br> Yep, I knew it. Thanks anyway. <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br> <br> <span style="white-space: pre;">> It would normally be a 128 bit number, usually presented as a hex string of 32 digits in the format 12345678-1234-1234-1234-1234567890ab - is that the kind of number you are seeing? If so, then it suggests that they are using the UUID method to generate numbers that are likely to be unique (for fairly large values of "likely"). This is not a bad idea, but I didn't think it was mandated.<br> > <br> >I would have thought that one might use EITHER uuid: OR urn: as a prefix to the message id - using both seems a little excessive. <br> </span><br> That is the exact question I'm asking. message id must have a scheme, which can be either uuid OR urn, but may not be both. <br> <br> -- Chinthaka<br> <br> <span style="white-space: pre;">> <br> >Perhaps one of our MS representatives might care to comment?<br> ><br> >________________________________<br> ><br> >From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org">public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org</a> on behalf of Eran Chinthaka<br> >Sent: Tue 07-Feb-06 15:31<br> >To: [WS-A]<br> >Subject: Clarification on MessageId<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ></span><br> <blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br> <br> I've started to complete WS-A implementation we have with Axis2. When<br> I went through our issue tracking system, I saw a little confusing<br> issue being filled by a user who was trying to interoperate .net with<br> Axis2.<br> <br> He has complained saying .net expects message id of the pattern<br> "uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>". But the spec says it can be any IRI. But<br> for me it seems that .net has mandated to prefix the uuid with<br> "uuid:urn".<br> <br> I checked with WS-A CR here :<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/</a> (BTW, this is the<br> latest, right ? ). In the first example, the message id was like<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://example.com/6B29FC40-CA47-1067-B31D-00DD010662DA">http://example.com/6B29FC40-CA47-1067-B31D-00DD010662DA</a>.<br> <br> So as far as the interop is concerned what do you think about this ?<br> Shall we adhere to the practice of putting "uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>"<br> as the message id, or will it be "any" IRI ?<br> <br> ( Please forgive me, if the one who has filled the bug has lied, as I<br> couldn't try this on my own :( )<br> <br> Thanks,<br> Eran Chinthaka<br> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html> --------------030401030007070504090803--
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:42:48 UTC